Harvard's President Stops an anti-Israel Boycott

Harvard University Dining Services [HUDS] has been rebuffed in its efforts to join the boycott movement against Israel. A group of radical anti-Israel Harvard students and faculty had persuaded the dining service to boycott Sodastream, an Israeli company that manufactures soda machines that produce a product that is both healthy and economical. But Harvard President Drew Faust rebuffed this boycott and decided to investigate the unilateral action of the Harvard University Dining Services.

I have visited the Sodastream factory and spoken to many of its Palestinian-Arab employees, who love working for a company that pays them high wages and provides excellent working conditions. I saw Jews and Muslims, Israelis and Palestinians, working together and producing this excellent product.

The Sodastream factory I visited was in Ma'ale Adumim—a suburb of Jerusalem that Palestinian Authority leaders acknowledge will remain part of Israel in any negotiated resolution of the conflict. I was told this directly by Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas and by former Prime Minister Salam Fayyad. Moreover, in all the negotiations about borders and land swaps, the Palestinians have acknowledged that Ma'ale Adumim will remain within Israel's borders.

Accordingly, although the factory is in an area beyond the Armistice lines of 1949, it is not really disputed territory. Nor does it pose any barrier to a two-state solution. Moreover, Israel offered to resolve its conflict with the Palestinians in 2000-2001 and in 2008, but the Palestinian Authority did not accept either offer. Had these generous offers been accepted, the dispute would have ended and Ma'ale Adumim would have been recognized as part of Israel. So the Palestinian leadership shares responsibility for the continuation of the conflict and the unresolved status of the area in which Sodastream operates. Punishing only Israel—and Israeli companies—for not resolving the conflict serves only to disincentivize the Palestinian Authority from accepting compromise solutions.

The students and faculty who sought the boycott of Sodastream invoked human rights. But it is they who are causing the firing of more than 500 Palestinian workers who would like to continue to earn a living at Sodastream. As a result of misguided boycotts, such as the one unilaterally adopted by Harvard University Dining Services, Sodastream has been forced to move its factory to an area in Israel where few, if any, Arabs can be employed. This is not a victory for human rights. It is a victory for human wrongs.

I have no doubt that some students and other members of the Harvard community may be offended by the presence of Sodastream machines. Let them show their displeasure by not using the machines instead of preventing others who are not offended from obtaining their health benefits. Many students are also offended by their removal. Why should the views of the former prevail over those of the latter? I'm sure that some students are offended by any products made in Israel, just as some are offended by products made in Arab or Muslim countries that oppress gays, Christians and women. Why should Harvard University Dining Services—or a few handfuls of students and professors— get to decide whose feelings of being offended count and whose don't?

In addition to the substantive error made by Harvard University Dining Services, there is also an important issue of process. What right does a single Harvard University entity have to join the boycott movement against Israel without full and open discussion by the entire university community, including students, faculty, alumni and administration? Even the president and provost were unaware of this divisive decision until they read about it in the Crimson. As Provost Garber wrote:

"Harvard University's procurement decisions should not and will not be driven by individuals' views of highly contested matters of political controversy."

Were those who made the boycott decision even aware of the arguments on the other side, such as those listed above? The decision of the HUDS must be rescinded immediately and a process should be instituted for discussing this issue openly with all points of view and all members of the university community represented. The end result should be freedom of choice: those who disapprove of Sodastream should be free to drink Pepsi. But those who don't disapprove should be free to drink Sodastream.

Economic boycotts should be reserved for the most egregious violations of human rights. They should not be used to put pressure on only one side of a dispute that has rights and wrongs on both sides.

Alan Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Harvard Law School (emeritus) and author of "Terror Tunnels: The Case for Israel's Just War Against Hamas" (Rosetta Books 2014)

Comment on this item

21 Reader Comments

Lori Lowenthal Marcus • Dec 22, 2014 at 15:40

Although the title of the article states that the university president stopped the boycott, Harvard's official statement upon which this claim was based does not support it. In fact, in the second to last paragraph this op-ed even states that "the [boycott] must be rescinded immediately." It is still in place - people, keep pressuring Harvard to undo this act which, at this point, the Harvard officials agree was wrongly decided.

Reply->

Mike • Dec 22, 2014 at 07:47

I was shocked to read the comments attributed to Harvard President Faust. I didn't think that truth was permitted at Harvard if it didn't fit the "Progressive" template.

Speaking fairness and balance surely will have the university roiled against him. One more "mistake" like this and he'll wind up like Larry Summers - gone.

Reply->

Charles Weingarten • Dec 21, 2014 at 21:04

Some people have good intentions yet they are misinformed. Others are just Anti-Semites in disguise. All in all people need to realize that by not supporting the Sodastream company they will wrongly be hurting both Israelis and people of the Palestinian Authority. Wishing for peace, understanding and prosperity in the Middle East.

Reply->

mikeKu • Dec 21, 2014 at 13:49

it's a good product whether made by Israeli hands or Palestinian; who cares? Unfortunately, those who worked at the factory will lose their jobs and support for their families. The President of Harvard is correct. Cooperation between Israel and the Palestinians was of great benefit to the PA before, including those who worked for my brother. These workers wanted nothing to do with the politicians who have misled the Palestinian people for decades and continue to do so. What have the Palestinians done to deserve such treatment?; only thieving leaders whose selfishness (nice Paris apt. for Mrs. Arafat) and rabid hatred of Israel has gotten them nowhere. Evil comes from a failure to think and BDS is a prime example.

Reply->

Gary V. Javitch • Dec 21, 2014 at 10:46

Too often -- at Harvard and other universities around the country -- the tail wags the dog!

If a small non-academic department at a major educational institution were to have sustained its move to dictate BDS purchasing policies (unilaterally, no less), then the university would have lost control (and significance).

How great it would be if strong presidential leadership could also stop the politicization of courses unrelated to the Middle East that preach anti-Israel sentiment.

(It would be fantastic if that leadership could also stifle the the anti-Israel personal-opinion-taught-as truth rhetoric in Mid-East related classes, too, but that would be asking too much.)

A refreshing voice of calm and reason in a time when so many - who should know better - are shooting from the hip with so little understanding of the facts and so little regard for the far reaching effects of such irresponsibility.

Reply->

Harold Rosenthal • Dec 21, 2014 at 01:45

In visiting the SodaStream plant this past April I spoke one on one to several Muslim employees. A foreman of 10, four of whom are Israelis, said he was surprised to learn Jews do not have tails and fur. Invited to a Jewish wedding, "I was treated like everyone else." A young Palestinian said his friends are jealous. He earns three times the pay for comparable work. There is a prayer room Muslims can go to as long as they wish while still on the clock. Arabs and Jews learning to respect each other. How dangerous is that?

Reply->

kathleen7546 • Dec 20, 2014 at 23:56

So many of these self righteous people do not explore what they do. thanks to Faust!

Reply->

laz schneider • Dec 20, 2014 at 16:16

I share the outrage about the substance and procedure of the Harvard Dining System action. However, coverage of this issue and similar ones are without the cleansing effect of daylight. This was not the action of BDS and the food service. There were individuals responsible. What are the names of the faculty? The students? The food service executives ?Only by disclosing this information will we know who is responsible, now and forever. If they are proud of their actions, they will be grateful for the publicity. If not, perhaps it will inhibit future actions.

Reply->

Sharon Theodore • Dec 20, 2014 at 12:58

Thanks Alan for this article that clearly exposes the biases and hatred of a certain group against Israel. Unfortunately, such groups act without restraints in Europe and were successful in damaging Israel's reputation as well as its trade.

God bless you.

Reply->

Paul Cerar • Dec 20, 2014 at 12:50

Of course the Jew-hatred movement are engaging in secret boycotts. They are only a tiny number of Fascists, and cannot achieve their fascist goals honestly. I wonder how many other acts of boycotting are taking place?

Paul CerarToronto, Canada

Reply->

JohnB • Dec 20, 2014 at 12:45

Shouldn't Harvard have a policy already in place that any boycott or any major steps to eliminate or add food vendors for any reason including substantial cost saving be passed through the administration? This should also screen such decisions as elimination of / addition of kosher or Muslim approved foods, foods served for specific religious days or traditional Holidays for religious reasons or to make political power points. This should food processing or service equipment produced in certain politically controversial countries, based on current political trends.

Let the administration take advisement from HUDS and decide whether such decisions are based in some form of bias among certain student groups or the HUDS. Finally, there should be a policy statement in place that puts the Kabosh on such actions by the students or HUDS. Students can boycott individually, even by social media, but not by 'command' origination or notification in the school funded paper. Can the paper allow a guest comment calling for such? Yes, but paper staff cannot take a stand acting on behalf of perceived or wished student sentiment, in favor of one group at the expense of another, so as to institutionalize bigotry, racism, religious bias, or reflect the warring conflicts in foreign countries. Editorialize, discuss, list the issues, but call for administrative review and a poll of the students before any such policies are pushed forward to school policy or boycotts carrying the weight of the institutions name such as a 'Harvard Boycott'. And this is supposed to be a respected and prominent institution...Hardly.

Harvard and other Ivy league schools are shams, bogus institution of higher bigotry sowing not the seeds of freedom, but the seeds of destruction. They are noted for their historical roots and significance but their preeminence as current pillars of sound philosophy and political doctrine has a very thin veneer that mask the corruption within. Their status as among the oldest such institutions and there geographical presence closest to the seats of political power give them an undeserved influence and image when it comes to the value of their degrees and influence in our governance and lawmaking. They are weakly guided corrupt institutions with no connection to their original compacts. Time to push the reset button on the value of these institutions.

Reply->

Fran Hutner • Dec 20, 2014 at 10:54

Sodastream is closing - or already had closed, I am not sure which - its West Bank plant and is moving to a new location in the Negev. While the owner expressed a willingness to keep his "Palestinian" employees, the distance makes this unlikely. I have since read that he intends to replace them with foreign workers currently living in Israel. Despite this, the boycott persists, proving that it has nothing to do with businesses operating over the green line. It's about Israeli businesses or any business that does business with Israel, even within the '67 lines.

Reply->

Frank Bright • Dec 20, 2014 at 10:00

The members of the Harvard University Dining Service know nothing and care less about that faraway country called Israel, neither of the Israelites of old and they have read neither the Old nor the New Testament and display no shred of historical knowledge and enquiry. Just as ignorance of the law has never been an excuse, ignorantia legem non excusat, at least in England, neither is refusing to listen to the other side or being judge and jury rolled into one. To have such ignoramuses on the Harvard campus doesn't say much for Harvard's admission policy. The Greeks had a word for it: To be ignorant is not a crime but to remain ignorant is. I would also suggest that an Economic Boycott can have consequences. An economic boycott against a state is war by other means and the assaulted party is justified into turning such a cold war into a hot one and states, groups and individuals bent on the destruction of a state inhabited by its indigenous people with a history going back over 3000 years may come to regret to have been listening to Siren (or Nazi) voices.

Reply->

Mike Briggs • Dec 20, 2014 at 09:34

God Bless Alan Dershowitz! Alan, you are a strong, reasoned and truthful voice in the chaotic world of Middle East geopolitical interests...thank you!

Reply->

Roald Øye • Dec 20, 2014 at 08:49

I need to pray: Lord, teach me to be more kind and sympathetic towards people with idiotic opinions, like those promoting these economic boycotts
at Harvard.

Reply->

George Crispi • Dec 20, 2014 at 08:36

Alan Dershowitz has in recent years become this conservative's favorite liberal. No matter what I have thought of his views in the past, I truly appreciate his unwavering, (yet not myopic), support for Israel. At this time in history, many Western liberal Jews are blindly throwing Israel under the proverbial bus.

Reply->

Professor William H. Stone • Dec 20, 2014 at 07:55

I was greatly impressed by President Drew Faust's appraisal of the Israel boycott.

The students and faculty are lucky to have such a thoughtful president.

Thank you for common sense and fairness!!!

Reply->

Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN • Dec 20, 2014 at 06:13

I am pleased with the process applied by the Harvard President, visiting the manufacturing plant of Soda stream in Israel.

Reply->

A.M. De Lieme • Dec 20, 2014 at 05:56

It's a pity, but the factory in the West Bank will close and 500 Palestinians will lose their jobs.

The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute.
Both reserve the right not to publish replies to articles should they so choose.
Gatestone Institute is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization, Federal Tax ID #454724565.